[Glice]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

what's the point of a debate between an atheist and a theist?

Depends on who the person is, on both sides. Bible-bashing no-nothings are equally as irritating as puritanical Athiests. As someone on the Theist side, I tend to think that it's important that both sides try and recognise the failings and strengths in each position. I'd say recognising failings was more important than the repetition of stolid arguments. Both sides tend to think their position is the 'true' one. That's not to say it's an absolutely subjective, or that either side is going to convince the other at any point. But if you can say to the hardline athiest 'hey, look, you're alright, let's have a pint' and the athiest can say 'well, he might as well believe in fairies, but he's an alright chap' then that's a good thing, innit? God knows [ha] how boring the world would be if everyone agreed (ie, had the same opinions and thoughts as me).

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead

what's the point of a debate between an atheist and a theist?

I love to reason with non-believers because believers are too caught up to have a serious, unbiased discussion sometimes, plus I love to gather a variety of perspectives.

Originally Posted by ann ashtray

"cultural potency" = hand me downs. Tradition, etc.
.

true, but the potency in Art is what makes them continue to pass down. Why did we recreate the architecture of the Pantheon across the world, from banks, schools, palaces etc etc? Because simply put, it is extraordinarily beautiful architecture, and humans love it regardless of its origin.

People today do not walk by a Bank of America fashioned after the Pantheon and even remotely recognize that the bank is a copy of an old Roman temple, they just like the way it looks.

This is how Christian symbolism has survived so long (in my opinion), because it is potent imagery about the wide range to the human condition/experience.

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

man this is so long i'll try to reply quickly



football has greater cultural potency than any of those relijuns. the beatles were bigger than jesus. paganism wins.



it appealed to the slaves, who were the majority. it's marketing genius consisted in that it celebrated the meek, the oppressed, the poor-- in other words, most of the population during the barbaric stages of history (which more or less continue until today)



i prefer the greeks, but to each their own



i grew up surrounded by baroque churches, and i always found christian imagery repellent, even when i believed-- naked crucifixions, statues with stupid faces, etc. sure, there was a profusion of religious art during the renaissance mostly because the megachurch footed the bill, but the good art came from the rediscovery of greece and rome.



i can't make logical sense of this. the "must" part always irks me though, i'm terrible at taking orders.




ok you left me behind here-- i can't catch up with your thinking. are we talking about historical truths or about how good or bad myths are regardless of their popularity? because i haven't agreed with you that popularity automatically translates into quality. it's like saying macdonalds must be awesome food because there's one everywhere.



like pokemon, or dungeons & dragons, or (better yet) greek mythology.



bullshit, christianity was spread by military and economic power-- ask any indian of the americas.

here a little entertainment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encomienda



the media did bombard me with shitty pop and i liked it until i was 12. my mom liked the beatles and i liked them ok for a while.

newsflash, the Spanish left mexico centuries ago, why did their imagery stick around? Mexicans today LOVE their Azteca cultural symbols, dress, imagery, architecture, dances etc etc. Why did they still embrace the foreign religious art and imagery even after the conquerors left? Why did they not just rejuvenate fully the pre-Colombian culture, why a synchronous blend of both?

It is blatantly rude to assume that all those people are merely brainwashed across centuries, I would say FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ART, that the art itself carries some potency which the people made their own, long after the edge of sword was sheathed..

Originally Posted by Glice

Depends on who the person is, on both sides. Bible-bashing no-nothings are equally as irritating as puritanical Athiests. As someone on the Theist side, I tend to think that it's important that both sides try and recognise the failings and strengths in each position. I'd say recognising failings was more important than the repetition of stolid arguments. Both sides tend to think their position is the 'true' one. That's not to say it's an absolutely subjective, or that either side is going to convince the other at any point. But if you can say to the hardline athiest 'hey, look, you're alright, let's have a pint' and the athiest can say 'well, he might as well believe in fairies, but he's an alright chap' then that's a good thing, innit? God knows [ha] how boring the world would be if everyone agreed (ie, had the same opinions and thoughts as me).

Bible bashers are indeed as rigorously and needlessly close minded as bible thumpers, both are being silly and ridiculous.

The Bible is a great book, and should be embraced as such regardless of the politics and drama of the religious history.

As Joseph Campbell explains:
"THE WORLD IS FULL OF ORIGIN MYTHS, AND ALL ARE FACTUALLY FALSE. THE WORLD IS FULL, ALSO, OF GREAT TRADITIONAL BOOKS TRACING THE HISTORY OF MAN (BUT FOCUSED NARROWLY ON THE LOCAL GROUP) FROM THE AGE OF MYTHOLOGICAL BEGINNINGS, THROUGH THE PERIODS OF INCREASING PLAUSIBILITY, TO A TIME ALMOST WITHIN MEMORY, WHEN THE CHRONICLES BEGIN TO CARRY THE RECORD, WITH A SHOW OF RATIONAL FACTUALITY, TO THE PRESENT.
FURTHERMORE, JUST AS ALL PRIMITIVE MYTHOLOGIES SERVE TO VALIDATE THE CUSTOMS, SYSTEMS OF SENTIMENTS, AND POLITICAL AIMS OF THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCAL GROUPS, SO DO THESE GREAT TRADITIONAL BOOKS. ON THE SURFACE THEY MAY APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN COMPOSED AS CONSCIENTIOUS HISTORY. IN DEPTH THEY REVEAL THEMSELVES TO HAVE BEEN CONCEIVED AS MYTHS: POETIC READINGS OF THE MYSTERY OF LIFE FROM A CERTAIN INTERESTED POINT OF VIEW. BUT TO READ A POEM AS A CHRONICLE OF FACT IS-TO SAY THE LEAST-TO MISS THE POINT. TO SAY A LITTLE MORE, IT IS TO PROVE ONESELF A DOLT. AND TO ADD TO THIS, THE MEN WHO PUT THESE BOOKS TOGETHER WERE NOT DOLTS BUT KNEW PRECISELY WHAT THEY WERE DOING - AS THE EVIDENCE OF THEIR MANNER OF WORK REVEALS AT EVERY TURN.

THE FIRST DECISIVE STEP TOWARD A READING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A PRODUCT, LIKE EVERY OTHER PIECE OF ANCIENT LITERATURE, NOT OF GOD'S LITERARY TALENT, BUT OF MAN'S.." Masks of God Volume iii (p 95)

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by DeadDiscoDildo

Whoa whoa whoa...the beatles did not produce shitty pop.

Watch it.

ha ha no-- the shitty pop of my childhood was not the beatles. it was just general shitty pop. my mom had some beatles records though. sorry i didn't make that clear.

nothing wrong with panning the beatles if you don't like them though. they're ok to me but they don't blow my mind. hate them, love them, i'm indifferent to other people's thoughts on them.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

newsflash, the Spanish left mexico centuries ago, why did their imagery stick around? Mexicans today LOVE their Azteca cultural symbols, dress, imagery, architecture, dances etc etc. Why did they still embrace the foreign religious art and imagery even after the conquerors left? Why did they not just rejuvenate fully the pre-Colombian culture, why a synchronous blend of both?

It is blatantly rude to assume that all those people are merely brainwashed across centuries, I would say FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ART, that the art itself carries some potency which the people made their own, long after the edge of sword was sheathed..

doh, "newsflash"? cmon dude. what the fuck. you wanna teach me latin american history now? the spanish didn't leave, they are still there, they are the criollos that constituted the elites-- look at the presidents of mexico, except for benito juarez-- where do you think they came from? they are the equivalent of the boston brahmins, only their presence is greater.

"why did their imagery stick around"? why do people speak english in the USA even after the english left some 230 years ago? do tell. is it because "english is a wonderful language" or is it because people keep using it and you learn it on your mother's knee & so on & so forth?

sometimes you twist things to absurd ends to prove your point. yes, the imagery stuck, so what? syncretism was in operation from the start. the jesuits and dominicans knew how to wrap christian messages into native religions-- go read some of the sor juana plays, read "el divino narciso" and see how theology operated back in those days. missionaries can infect a culture for generations. then again, the aztecs were not exactly the sweetest of people, so christianity might have been an improvement in that case, but not everyone was aztec in mexico (newsflash), go call a maya "aztec" when you wanna insult someone.

look, culture absorbs things like a sponge and perpetuates itself and mutates & carries on forever, catholicism was part of the colonizer culture and it's part of mexican culture today and it's going to stay for a very long time. even as masses of people are converted to protestant churches all over latin america-- pentecostals, jehovas witnesses, etc-- the catholic imprint will remain for a very very long time. guess what-- we still talk about greek myths 3,000 years after the illiad was composed.

i won't question that christianity has given birth to a very rich cultural output, it's evident it has, in art and philosophy and literature and music and so forth-- but it's humans that create that output with whatever they have at hand-- look at india's 4000 or so years of continuous civilization, or 4000 years of chinese culture-- frankly, if we're going to talk about potent symbols, hinduism is a lot more fun than christianity, i mean, their mythology is VAST and incredibly rich and deep and mind-boggling and very highly philosophical-- they have a goddess of books, for fucks sakes-- how beautiful is that?

what am i mumbling about here? i forgot. all i'm saying is, yes, you want to prove that christianity is so special, fine, go ahead, but don't stretch the truth to absurd points. "oh, look, la virgen de guadalupe". well, sure. it's the religious imagination and creativity of mexican people that has kept that alive, an yes, mothers are potent symbols, anybody knows taht. there's a psychological experiment where they had group therapy where they put a subliminal message that said "MOMMY AND I ARE ONE" and people started spilling the beans at a faster rate.

see here: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchVa lue_0=EJ266882&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno =EJ266882

so, religion makes use of the potent mother image. brilliant.

[Savage Clone]

 

[SpectralJulianIsNotDead]

got to side with !@#$%! on that one

While Mexico may be free from Spanish rule, it is still dominated by people descended from the Spanish.

[knox]

it looks like someone here can't keep his word.

I opened this thread to read idiotic discussions not to see another fucking naked woman. I thought that was supposed to be kept in the threads for wankers.

Anyway, the point of everything is destruction.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by knox

it looks like someone here can't keep his word.

I opened this thread to read idiotic discussions not to see another fucking naked woman. I thought that was supposed to be kept in the threads for wankers.

Anyway, the point of everything is destruction.

pfffft, knox! ridONCulous.

"word"

blah blah-- seriously!!!

[knox]

I guess that just shows your disrespect.
I don't care, that doesn't say anything about ME. And I'm not being patronizing either, but nothing new.

[knox]

But you know what? Fuck off.
I was just saying you were one of those who claimed to be willing to reach an agreement if women were feeling disrespected in the forum and blah blah.

[Savage Clone]

I suppose "sanctimonious" and "patronizing" aren't exactly the same thing...

[Keeping It Simple]

Originally Posted by knox

But you know what? Fuck off.
I was just saying you were one of those who claimed to be willing to reach an agreement if women were feeling disrespected in the forum and blah blah.

!@#$%! is a cunt. What else did you expect from him?

[knox]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

I suppose "sanctimonious" and "patronizing" aren't exactly the same thing...

Or maybe I am paranoid. Whatever it was, it wasn't... Eloquent.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

doh, "newsflash"? cmon dude. what the fuck. you wanna teach me latin american history now? the spanish didn't leave,



sometimes you twist things to absurd ends to prove your point. yes, the imagery stuck, so what? syncretism was in operation from the start. the jesuits and dominicans knew how to wrap christian messages into native religions-- go read some of the sor juana plays, read "el divino narciso" and see how theology operated back in those days. missionaries can infect a culture for generations. then again, the aztecs were not exactly the sweetest of people, so christianity might have been an improvement in that case, but not everyone was aztec in mexico (newsflash), go call a maya "aztec" when you wanna insult someone.

dude.. I ain't trying to convert or preach to anyone here, just trying to discuss the Virgin and all Her aspects, either religious, artistic or cultural. You and me BOTH know well that Mexicans sincerely love, honor and cherish the Virgin, for a million and one deeply personal reasons, and it is not simply the result of Spanish cultural domination, or of the upper class creoles.. Nobody is more bravely individual then poor, rural Mexicans, and if they didn't see a personal reason to support Our Lady, surely they would have threw Her in the garbage with the burnt tortillas (at least that's what my Mexican grandmas taught me )..

i won't question that christianity has given birth to a very rich cultural output, it's evident it has, in art and philosophy and literature and music and so forth-- but it's humans that create that output with whatever they have at hand--

what am i mumbling about here? i forgot. all i'm saying is, yes, you want to prove that christianity is so special, fine, go ahead, but don't stretch the truth to absurd points. "oh, look, la virgen de guadalupe". well, sure. it's the religious imagination and creativity of mexican people that has kept that alive, an yes, mothers are potent symbols, anybody knows taht. there's a psychological experiment where they had group therapy where they put a subliminal message that said "MOMMY AND I ARE ONE" and people started spilling the beans at a faster rate.

so, religion makes use of the potent mother image. brilliant.

THIS IS ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY!

You nailed my point entirely, and I thank you

sweet jesus man, I just wanted to have an intelligent discussion about the Virgin as Art and Culture. If I wanted to preach or get into a religious discussion I would have brought this conversation to my parish over afternoon coffee. I don't think that Christianity is special necessarily because I think that its true, actually I can think of Christianity as a concept entirely separate from my own faith, and I can admire its art and culture for the sake of art and culture alone, not just to prop up or justify my faith.

Originally Posted by suchfriendsaredangerous

BUT TO READ A POEM AS A CHRONICLE OF FACT IS-TO SAY THE LEAST-TO MISS THE POINT. TO SAY A LITTLE MORE, IT IS TO PROVE ONESELF A DOLT. AND TO ADD TO THIS, THE MEN WHO PUT THESE BOOKS TOGETHER WERE NOT DOLTS BUT KNEW PRECISELY WHAT THEY WERE DOING - AS THE EVIDENCE OF THEIR MANNER OF WORK REVEALS AT EVERY TURN.



THE FIRST DECISIVE STEP TOWARD A READING OF THE OLD TESTAMENT AS A PRODUCT, LIKE EVERY OTHER PIECE OF ANCIENT LITERATURE, NOT OF GOD'S LITERARY TALENT, BUT OF MAN'S..

One of the points of this thread was that I was hoping to discuss the symbolic and artistic potency of Christianity and Judaism, and thankfully we all managed to do that. seriously, much much thanks to you all for contributing relatively proactively.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Savage Clone

 

truly hilarious! These are JUST the kind of angles I wanted to see..

In the context of the story, the Virgin represents just this kind of thing. Inuendos (after all, when young nuns come up pregnant in monasteries we often know who to blame and its usually not God ) and sexuality.

Why was Her story so controversial? For the same reason a teenage girl coming home mysteriously pregnant today would be controversial in many places.

The Virgin is also a wonderful symbol for women who, in good and bad circumstances, often find themselves saying, "Shit! My period is late!!!"

 

just as the young Virgin had to say, and for any woman this can be quite a situation of stress and anxiety. She is then a symbol of our anxieties and insecurities around child birth, sexuality, promiscuity, fidelity, public morality etc etc

The moral of the story is that even though Our Lady went through a stressful and even frightening situation regarding child birth, She managed in time and patience to get through it, just as most people when having a baby are stressed and often can't even imagine what they are going to do or how they are going to take care of the baby or if they will be good parents or is it even my baby etc etc etc, generally overcome all the obstacles, with or without divine intervention, and get through it just fine.

humans are comforted by success stories, it helps us get through our own difficulties and insecurities

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

dude.. I ain't trying to convert or preach to anyone here, just trying to discuss the Virgin and all Her aspects, either religious, artistic or cultural. You and me BOTH know well that Mexicans sincerely love, honor and cherish the Virgin, for a million and one deeply personal reasons, and it is not simply the result of Spanish cultural domination, or of the upper class creoles.. Nobody is more bravely individual then poor, rural Mexicans, and if they didn't see a personal reason to support Our Lady, surely they would have threw Her in the garbage with the burnt tortillas (at least that's what my Mexican grandmas taught me )..


THIS IS ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY!

rght, right, but the virgen de guadalupe is originally tonantzin

except that now she's a "virgin" coopted by the pope

THAT'S ALL I WAS TRYING TO SAY! (ha ha)

hence, this whole virgin thing remain "a pack of lies"-- steal a native deity dress her up as a mediterranean one & fool the indians (you read divino narciso yet? do-- very enlightening)

however, sure, la virgen de guadalupe better reflects the hybrid native/spanish culture than would tonantzin herself OR some european virgin (this sounds weird-- but there was a pink virgin before they painted her skin brown). in that sense the mixed-blood goddess is both culturally appropriate and the product of violent conquest. the daughter of tonantzin raped by the missionaries. but it fits. gods are invented by humans.

[!@#$%!]

knox, quit acting like a professional victim. maybe you did already, but anyway, if you read my post with any measure of sanity you'll realize my Cult of Bellucci was a reference to this, a paleolithic figure/amulet/whoknowswhat:

 

famously known as the "venus of willendorf" though the venus nickname is a bit of a stretch

you know that when simpleton is on your side something has gone horribly awry

[knox]

A victim? Aren't you overestimating yourself?
A victim because I point out you're being a hypocrite?
After all, you were among those who said it'd be reasonable and respectful to keep the photos of naked woman in certain threads.
It's disappointing for me to see you behave that way, and adopt that patronising/superior tone as if you're being attacked.
Trust me, if I'm among the few women on this board that you couldn't put off posting here I'm far from ever being a victim.
I'm acting like a victim because I'm saying something? - I think victims would do the opposite.

--

And, like I said, I do not care. All I said is that you have given me the impression that you cared and wanted to be more respectful and compromise, and then this. I'm not even saying any of this for ME - after all I'm still posting here but just because I'd like to see more women post as well. There aren't any supernatural reasons to explain why few women post here - and i've seen it happen to many internet forums.

[knox]

Most of the time I am the victim if I don't tell you to go fuck yourself.

Virgin Mary - to blame for all this.

[artsygrrl]

SuchFriendsAreDangerous: I believe. I've always believed.